Indeeunme, I think most of us would agree with you that, if the Chiefs had not signed at Dancing Rabbit Creek (and the preceding treaty sites, for that matter), our ancestors may indeed have been decimated by direct attack. Rather than "blaming" the treaty(s) and those who signed them, I expect that most of the negative sentiment to which you are responding is probably more directed toward the expansionist of the European colonialists, and subsequently the U.S. government. While there are certainly still some folks who would have sided with the various militant rebellions, such as Osceola in the southeast, I think most indigenous descendants today are glad that as many of us survived as did. That doesn't change the fact however, that the European and subsequent U.S. policies about how to treat our indigenous ancestors could have been a lot less imperial and a lot more respectful. I certainly don't mean to speak for everyone else but, from my membership on this list and other indigenous communities, I am fairly secure in saying that most folks know better than to blame the treaties themselves. If not, I'm sure I'll get flamed along with you by those who vehemently disagree with one or both of us. Chi-pisa-l'achike. --Sean